[2020] KEELC 953 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 953 (KLR)

The court held that the dismissal of the judicial review application did not create a positive order capable of execution or implementation. The only executable aspect of such a judgment is costs, not the substantive relief sought by the applicant. The stay orders granted during the pendency of the suit lapsed upon...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 953 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Republic; Respondent: District Commissioner Igembe District; Respondent: Director Land Adjudication and Settlement; Respondent: Director Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igembe South District; Respondent: Attorney General; Interested Party: John Kinoti Kobia; Ex Parte Applicant: Grace Kanyua M’Munjuri
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 102 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Enforcement Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Implementation of Judgment, Land Adjudication, Stay Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Judicial Review Implementation of Judgment Land Adjudication Stay Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Republic

Applicant

District Commissioner Igembe District

Respondent

Director Land Adjudication and Settlement

Respondent

Director Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer Igembe South District

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

John Kinoti Kobia

Interested Party

Grace Kanyua M’Munjuri

Ex Parte Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Judgment Enforcement Application

  1. 1 Whether the court can order the 3rd respondent to implement the judgment delivered on 23/02/2018.
  2. 2 Whether a judicial review dismissal creates a positive order capable of execution.
  3. 3 Whether the stay orders granted during the pendency of the suit remain in force after judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the dismissal of the judicial review application did not create a positive order capable of execution or implementation. The only executable aspect of such a judgment is costs, not the substantive relief sought by the applicant. The stay orders granted during the pendency of the suit lapsed upon delivery of the judgment, and thus no further order is required to vacate them. Consequently, the application seeking to compel the 3rd respondent to implement the judgment was dismissed, as there was no positive order to enforce. The court clarified that the stay orders previously issued are no longer in force and expressly vacated them.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 8/11/2019 is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  • The stay orders given on 20.12.2010 and issued on 21.12.2010 are vacated.